Quarterback?

[slick1ru2]

USF is not alone with offense issues. OU/WVU is a turnover fest.

Edited September 8, 2013 by slick1ru2

[USF Bulls Football]

Look, the offense laid an egg. But it was also against the best defense this team has probably seen since UF. I hear people knocking the O-Line, but has anybody considered we basically had a 100 yd rusher today? Bobby is prob the best option right now, but he is very slow and deliberate.

[Apis Bull]

Look, the offense laid an egg. But it was also against the best defense this team has probably seen since UF. I hear people knocking the O-Line, but has anybody considered we basically had a 100 yd rusher today? Bobby is prob the best option right now, but he is very slow and deliberate.

 

+1

[Gismo]

Eveld has proven time and time again that he has a negative impact on the team. He has zero QB intelligence, no confidence, and turns the ball over like crazy.

Bobby had two turnovers today... neither of which were his fault. Turnovers have never been his problem.

He also threw into double+ coverage all day and did nothing else for the offense. He had 2 or 3 picks dropped. He looked like a statue out there. Eveld is going to start next week for whatever asinine reason. That's the way college football works. It makes zero sense. Eveld brings nothing to the table and there is no upside. Clearly this is a lost season. Why we wouldn't play Bench the rest of the year or even White is beyond me. Bench using 25% of the playbook is probably better than Eveld playing with 100% of it. The more experience he gets the better he will be. Clearly bench is more mobile and he probably has a stronger arm. Taggart does not need to be playing for useless wins this season. I would rather go 0-12 with Bench playing if it meant we would be substantially better next year.

Going 0-12 would be horrible.

Not only that, playing bench iu because Eveld will be gone next year is no guarantee that the team will be any better next year. How does it help the team to go 0-12 just because Eveld will be gone? 3 wins, 5 wins, etc woth Eveld is much better than 0-12. The fans and season ticket holders don't pay money to see the team lose. And also for recruiting purposes you feild the team that gives you best chance of winning every game. Take the wins you can, there is no guarantee the team will magically improve the following year, just because you played the players that will return next year.

Might as well bench all of the seniors because none of them will be here next year. Better to have a more experienced team for next season. That is a terrible approach to college football.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Gismo

[NinjaPenguin777]

 

 

 

Eveld has proven time and time again that he has a negative impact on the team. He has zero QB intelligence, no confidence, and turns the ball over like crazy.

Bobby had two turnovers today... neither of which were his fault. Turnovers have never been his problem.

He also threw into double+ coverage all day and did nothing else for the offense. He had 2 or 3 picks dropped. He looked like a statue out there. Eveld is going to start next week for whatever asinine reason. That's the way college football works. It makes zero sense. Eveld brings nothing to the table and there is no upside. Clearly this is a lost season. Why we wouldn't play Bench the rest of the year or even White is beyond me. Bench using 25% of the playbook is probably better than Eveld playing with 100% of it. The more experience he gets the better he will be. Clearly bench is more mobile and he probably has a stronger arm. Taggart does not need to be playing for useless wins this season. I would rather go 0-12 with Bench playing if it meant we would be substantially better next year.

Going 0-12 would be horrible.

Not only that, playing bench iu because Eveld will be gone next year is no guarantee that the team will be any better next year. How does it help the team to go 0-12 just because Eveld will be gone? 3 wins, 5 wins, etc woth Eveld is much better than 0-12. The fans and season ticket holders don't pay money to see the team lose. And also for recruiting purposes you feild the team that gives you best chance of winning every game. Take the wins you can, there is no guarantee the team will magically improve the following year, just because you played the players that will return next year.

Might as well bench all of the seniors because none of them will be here next year. Better to have a more experienced team for next season. That is a terrible approach to college football.

 

I never said going 0-12 helps us, but at this rate we are going 0-12 with Bobby Eveld. Is it really going to matter if we win 1 or 2 games with Bobby Eveld at the helm? Does he really give us the best chance to win all season anyway? Getting the younger guys experience in a lost season is more important than trying to win 1 or 2 games with a guy that has no upside. I said I would rather go 0-12 IF it meant we were substantially better the next year. I also never said anything about benching all Seniors. When you have a team that will be lucky to get 3-5 wins, and has a struggling offense then yes you bench your senior QB who brings nothing to the table. How does playing Eveld help this team? I don't believe he does. That was my point. 

 

You say fans don't pay to see the team lose. Do you really think fans are going to show up in force because USF beats FAU and Memphis vs not winning any games at all? Recruits aren't going to commit because we win 2 games vs 0. Its all semantics at that point. When the offense is as bad as they have been, you don't continue doing the same thing.

Edited September 8, 2013 by NinjaPenguin777

[CousinRicky]

Eveld is a good qb and can see over the line. Bench is like 5'8" and can't see ****!

WTF? Are you serious? Steven is 6'3" or 6'4". I have stood next to him.

[CoralSpringsBull]

Unless our quarterback play greatly improves, we will have a winless season. Who should be our starting quarterback? I have no freaking idea.

[GaUSFBull]

 

Eveld is a good qb and can see over the line. Bench is like 5'8" and can't see ****!

WTF? Are you serious? Steven is 6'3" or 6'4". I have stood next to him.

 

 

Disregarding the Bench height argument - Eveld is like 6'5", right?  How many passes did he get batted down today?  

[tamiamibull05]

Screw the quarterback position. Let's just go with the good ol' Single Wing offense.

[Southshore26]

 

Eveld is a good qb and can see over the line. Bench is like 5'8" and can't see ****!

WTF? Are you serious? Steven is 6'3" or 6'4". I have stood next to him.

 

 

Stop bringing logic into this... you should know better. LOL